Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew provide insight into the psyche and the acceptance of propagandist material. Both films demonstrate the “Jew” as a type. They are creatures that are inhuman, exceedingly greedy, unscrupulous, cunning, perverted, and dramatically different from the good German in every way. Moreover, both films emphasize the ability of the ‘jew” to infiltrate European society, and the necessity to exterminate the rodent. In each film the Jewish ghetto becomes a disgusting place that is contrasted with excessive wealth. Furthermore, both the drama and the documentary embrace long lasting stereotypes that are substantiated using historical evidence. The documentary uses maps and statistics. The whole of Jew Suss is claimed to be a true story. In both films an appeal is made to religious doctrine to display to truth of the argument against the Jews, particularly shocking (as I am sure the audience felt) is a quotation from Luther regarding Jews used in Jew Suss. The audience in either case would eventually allow this evidence to permeate their views, transferring it onto the Jews within their own society and developing comparisons to rationalize subsequent actions by the Nazis.
The critical difference between these two films is in their form. Jew Suss as a drama disguises the Anti-Semitic message, even if the disguise is only very thin, within a narrative. The Jews are characterized; they take on a collective voice and message in the form of Suess Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer is a detestable villain. He is cunning and greedy, his beady eyes and soft devilish voice exacerbate what the Eternal Jew clearly describes as the most dangerous kind of Jew. Hiding within the government, this type of “jew” is unrecognizable by most and has the ability to slowly and steadily destroy German society. If this menace is not destroyed the floodgates will open and the disease will spread to all of Germany. The audiences are not told this, but rather see it happen. They develop a hatred for Oppenheimer, and are invited to transfer that on disgust onto the crafty “jews” hiding in their midst. The closing lines of Jew Suss craft a sense of responsibility which ensures that no one in the audience will allow their great society to succumb to the disease of the “Jew.” The inferences of Jew Suss are much easier to handle for the audience because the propaganda is not as entirely blatant as in the documentary. Rather they come to conclusions on their own about the “Jew.” It is easy for audience to rationalize Jew Suss as a simple story, the documentary’s clear anti-Semitism proved too much for the common rational German to handle. They did not need disgusting metaphors and images to enhance an already burgeoning hatred established by the cautionary tale of Jew Suss. They understood quite well what the dangers were. It seems to me the Eternal Jew was simply a means to reinforce the message of Jew Suss particularly for those audience members too rationale or educated to give credence to the narrative. Saying to those Germans who may question Jew Suss that, “well you may not have believed the story, but here are the facts.” The Nazi’s clearly wanted to ensure that when it came to the Jewish Scourge their message was clear, drive them out and do away with them. It would seem to me that those who walked out either already understood the message, or found the message disgusting. However, as history has shown under the Nazis those in the latter categories were likely to keep that disgust to themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment